Are Israeli settlements illegal?

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been tried in the New Zealand court of public opinion and found to be illegal. Waikato Professor of Law, Alexander Gillespie, recently declared in the NZ Herald that “There is no question in international law that these settlements are illegal.” Similarly, many of the mainstream media articles written on the subject, as well as the slogans and placards of anti-Israel activists, refer simply to “illegal settlements”. We hear this refrain time and again.

credit: http://www.globalresearch.ca

UN Security Council resolution 2334 stated that the establishment of settlements “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”.

However, despite the certainty with which these claims are made, there is very considerable evidence and analysis to suggest that it is not correct to label settlements as illegal.

In legal terms, the West Bank is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations – and indeed both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have committed to this principle….“ Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Northwestern University Professor of Law, Eugene Kontorovich has outlined the legalities of Israeli settlements, which explains why Gillespie is so grossly mistaken:

Here is a summary of some key legal points, which Gillespie and others have overlooked:

Adopted by the League of Nations, the 1922 resolution recognised the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. It called for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes” – this included the land West of the Jordan river (i.e.what is commonly referred to as the West Bank).

Shortly thereafter the League of Nations and Great Britain decided that the provisions for setting up a Jewish national home would not apply to the area East of the Jordan River. Transjordan was created for the Arabs with 75% of the original land administered under the mandate. Transjordan eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

According to Gillespie, the Israeli settlements are on “territory which they acquired by military force in 1967 and never returned”. The suggestion is that Israel, through an act of aggression, took the land from the Palestinians, to whom it must be returned. However, at that stage Arab Palestinian national identity was still in its infancy. There had never been a self-governing Arab Palestinian state. How could the land then be “returned” to them?

Jordan unlawfully invaded and annexed Judea and Samaria [in 1948]. In 1967, Israel ended this illegal occupation in a war of self-defense, taking control of the territory. This suggests that it’s actually Israel which has a strong claim of sovereign title to the territory, by virtue of its having retaken the area from an unlawful Jordanian presence. The case of Israel is unique because there’s no prior instances where a new state’s territory was immediately occupied. But Israel has valid claims to legal title of the West Bank, and now legally holds it.” Miriam Elman

Resolution 242 meant a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed upon the parties – and this has also been the longstanding policy of New Zealand. The withdrawal from occupied territories was also linked to the “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”.

“The rule, very clear since the Geneva Conventions were created in the wake of the atrocities of World War II in 1949, is that the populations of occupied territories shall not be forced out and the occupying power shall not transfer its own civilians into the territory it possesses.”

It has been argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the settlements for a number of reasons. One is that, as outlined above, Israel has the best legal claim to the land and is not an occupying power. Another is that the land was captured in a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1949. However, a 1999 resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the “occupied territories”.

Kontorovich has compared the situations of several ongoing occupations with settlement policies; Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, in order to determine whether the Israeli settlements are in breach of the Geneva Conventions.

Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. The allowed practices are significantly inconsistent with “conventional wisdom” concerning the Geneva Conventions, specifically Art. 49(6) to which Gillespie referred:

First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations.

Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so.

Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought.

Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.” Eugene Kontorovich

It seems that there are evidently double standards in the application of the Geneva Conventions and is the only state to have resolutions passed against it requiring the removal of civilians. Either the settlements are in breach of the Geneva Conventions – and then so are many other conflicts where the word “illegal” is not invoked – or the Israeli settlements are like many other disputed territories – not actually illegal.

Despite the arguments above, there have been non-binding United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions that call Israeli settlements illegal (in addition to some legal scholars and armchair critics). This does not remove any questions about the actual legalities but it has put pressure on the Israeli legal system.

Unlike its neighbours Israel is a liberal democracy with an independent judiciary and a stringent rule of law. The Supreme Court has ruled on many controversial issues to ensure the law is upheld, including that of settlements. Every aggrieved inhabitant of the disputed territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court. Ministers of the Israeli Parliament have tried recently to introduce bills that would legalise some “outpost” settlements (those built without proper permits), but the Attorney General of Israel has warned that the legislation would not be defensible in court.

Israel’s courts have ruled that some building activity, by Arab, Jewish, Bedouin, and others, is illegal. Most recently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged a crackdown on illegal Jewish settlements and helped negotiate a peaceful resolution to removing settlers from the village of Amona, stating that the law on illegal construction “must be egalitarian. The same law that necessitates the evacuation of Amona, necessitates the evacuation of illegal construction elsewhere in our country”.

The Israeli courts have also ruled that some settlement activity is legal – when there are appropriate permits in place and the law is being followed, building is allowed. However, when there are individuals or groups who wish to unilaterally take land and claim it as their own, the courts step in. That is how the law should work.

You don’t need to be a professor of law to know that there are few legal issues so black and white that they can be answered with a “there is no question” or “everyone says so”. Contrary to Gillespie and others’ superficial statements, the question of the legality of the settlements is a complex one, which cannot be summed up as “all settlements are illegal”. While the Security Council can make recommendations, it is not a court of law. Rather, the evidence shows that there is considerable room for debate on this question.

Shalom.Kiwi’s contributors are a mix of Māori, Pakeha, Jewish and non-Jewish New Zealanders, who have all spent considerable time in Israel. http://shalom.kiwi/

Check Also

64 comments

I’m going to be just as black and white on this as Alexander Gillespie.

Of course Jews choosing to live beyond the 1949 armistice lines and especially in Jerusalem are NOT illegal.

The notion that the Geneva Conventions apply to deem this illegal is not just wrong. It is abhorrent.

That this legal academic overlooks everything in the world between NZ and Israel to find some Jews to declare as ” illegal ” says something very unsavoury about him and his university and law school. They are trying to strangle the very notion of the rule of law.

On the other hand murder, incitement to murder and supporting and encouraging terrorism that the PA does as routine business is illegal. That there are law academics that don’t believe that this is even worth mentioning stinks of something rotten at the core of our institutions.

They are trying to strangle the notion of the rule of law only when it applies to Israel.
They would have a bit of a problem doing it to Jews in the host countries ( though that might change ,too), so they vent their hatred against the Jewish nation-state.

The author states:
“According to Gillespie, the Israeli settlements are on “territory which they acquired by military force in 1967 and never returned”.

Gillespie ignores the fact that in 1967 the PLO made no claim to regional sovereignty over the “West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” (Article 24 PLO Charter). That article was simply dropped in 1968 – unaccompanied by any claim to sovereignty by the PLO

If it was to be returned to anyone it was to Jordan – whose occupation had only been recognised by Britain and Pakistan. It was Jordan that Israel negotiated with on the future of the West Bank until 1987.

In 1988 Jordan finally severed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank. Until then West Bank Arabs had beeen Jordanian citizens.

So much for the spurious claim by the “Palestinians” to demand a separate state there now.

The only solution that can now possibly work is completing the 1922 “two-state solution” – the territorial subdivision of the last remaining 5% of the territory comprised in the Mandate for Palestine between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate already living in peace and security alongside each other.

Professor Gillespie in his blind rush to judgement is probably unaware of these salient facts.

He has probably been reading too much PLO propaganda.

When a Law Professor only looks at half the facts – many of them fake and contrived by propagandists – his legal opinion is likely to not be worth the paper it is written on.

The argument “everybody says so” is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum (The Bandwagon Fallacy.) The notion that a proposition’s veracity is determined by the number of people who believe it.
A notable example is the Geocentric Theory of the Universe disproven by Galileo; although he spent the last years of his life under house arrest for asserting that the Earth rotated around the Sun and not vice versa.
That the Geocentric Theory was false, is further confirmed in that its proponents needed to resort to argumentum ad bacculum (a proposition is true because I am stronger than you and can therefore enforce my opinion on you.)

This is exactly the situation faced by Israel today. Many people have climbed aboard the Bandwagon of Palestinianism (built on multiple falsehoods) and they now attempt to force this false proposition on us; with their cudgels (bacculae.)

Our history has shown that every manifestation of the Memshelet Zadon rapidly collapses under it own putrescent weight. Resulting from the accumulation of the falsehoods on which it rests. From Pharoah to Perfidious Albion this pattern has repeated in every age. The bloody implosion of the Islamic Imperial project is now playing out before our very eyes. The Western Democracies now teeter on that same brink.

You people don’t seem to know much about international law. UN resolutions are very very important in determining what the law is. So any debate about the legality of the settlements was ended with resolution 2334. That resolution does more than provide the SC’s interpretation of the legality. It essentially has the effect of actually writing law and making it illegal because when interpreting international law, UN resolutions carry a lot of weight. In summart, Gillespie is correct. No matter if you want to keep your heads in the sand

“You people don’t seem to know much about international law. UN resolutions are very very important in determining what the law is. So any debate about the legality of the settlements was ended with resolution 2334”

Really?

UN Resolution 2334 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and is not legally binding.

Article 80 of the UN charter laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in Judaea and Samaria, western Palestine, a 10,000 square mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day and it is enshrined and protected by international law.

CB
I don’t have very much regard for the opinions of those who comment anonymously, begin with “You People” (grossly offensive and implicating all Jews as bearing responsibility) and then go on to make claims without substantiating the basis on which they are made.

Security Council Resolution 2334 is illegal since it was passed by the Security Council in violation of the UN Charter – specifically article 80. The Security Council has no power to act outside the Charter.

Law is not made by unilateral declarations by the Security Council without any proper consideration of the applicable law.

In this instance the Security Council obviously gave no consideration to the legal ramifications of article 80 of the UN Charter.

Until the Security Council gets at least an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice – Resolution 2334 remains a worthless piece of paper.

Indeed subsequent events in Paris where 12 of the 15 members of the Security Council resiled from parts of Resolution 2334 they had passed just three weeks earlier indicate that Resolution 2334 is going to have a very controversial life.

The Security Council, like many governments, such as that of New Zealand and even the USA. demonstrates utter disdain for international law when that law fairly finds for Israel.
A British official during the Mandate era put it succinctly: ” If we have to offend either the Arabs or the Jews, let us offend the Jews.”

Actually, in saying “you people” I was referring simply to the people who had commented on this forum and written the article. It had zero connotations of which religion or ethnicity those people had.. So.. calm down a little please.

As for your responses, they did not address the central tenant of my post, which is a reality that no-one on this forum seems willing to accept.

The fact is that SC resolutions are very influential in defining International Law, and resolution 2334 is influential enough to end all debate on the matter of whether settlements are illegal.

The claim that resolution 2334 itself “illegal” is quite amazing. Really clutching at straws there. Illegal?? Really? wow. Sure you are not just being biased here?

And what on earth is a “unilateral” decision of the Security Council?
How is a 13-0 vote unilateral? It is an international forum. How is an international consensus unilateral?

Aren’t settlements unilateral? Who other than Israel agreed to them? Were they agreed to by negotiation? No. they are unilaterally made by Israel.

Have you ever studied the 1922 Mandate for ‘Palestine” [ my quotation marks] which was endorsed unanimously by the Council of The League of Nations? OR the US Congress’ endorsement thereof? Or President Wilson’s endorsement ?
Have you studied the 1919 agreement between the Emir Feisal and the Zionist Organisation, where the leader of the Arab nation fully and warmly endorses Zionism’s aims and objectives?
Or Chapter 80 of the UN Charter?
Or UNSC 242?

It’s more convenient to offend the Jews rather than the Arabs.
Fortunately people who have your curious slant, even the Europeans ,will not determine Israel’s history, just as they were unable to frustrate its reconstitution in 1948.

By the way your patronising tone makes you appear even more ridiculous than the actual content of your contribution.
The height of comic irony occurs when an ignoramus condescends.

Yes, I know those mandates etc. It just does not support the claim that UNSC 2334 is illegal, and when all the edicts are read together including the Geneva convention it is clear that the UNSC 2334 really puts to bed any notion that the settlements are legal. The reading of UNSC 242 as being proof that settlements are legal is just not valid, in light of how 2334 refers to that earlier resolution

Resolution 2334 is illegal because:
1. Article 80 of the UN Charter preserves the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza, Judea and and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
2. Resolution 2334 violates article 80 because it seeks to deny the rights preserved by article 80.
3. The UN Security Council cannot act in contravention of the UN Charter.

If you want to dispute my claim then state the specific facts or opinions on which you rely.

Your only answer so far has been:
“The claim that resolution 2334 itself “illegal” is quite amazing. Really clutching at straws there. Illegal?? Really? wow. Sure you are not just being biased here?”

That generalised rubbish is not good enough – and indeed insulting.

What bias are you referring to? Is it that I am Jewish? Don’t you think Jews can hold opinions without their views being summarily dismissed as being biased?

I have stated my above reasons to justify my claim that Resolution 2334 is illegal.

Now you must state your reasons why you disagree and we can then have a reasoned discussion.

“We people” are actually brilliant experts in international law.
One of “Our people,” Professor Julius Stone, long ago refuted the myth of illegality.
Another of our people, Justice Lauterpacht of the International Court of Justice, a legal “icon,” did likewise.
Eugene Rostow, one “of ours”, was yet another Jew who knew the law.
Arthur Goldberg [ well, with a name like that…] the USA’s United Nations delegate expounded on the legality of the Jewish claims.
We could fill entire volumes of brilliantly incisive, profound, compelling legal arguments, buttressed by sources, precedents, conventions..you name it,that “you people” have engraved in solid rock, reaffirming the Jewish People’s inalienable legal right to live anywhere in The Land of Israel.
Why any person of any degree of mental capacity, who lives in New Zealand, many thousands of kilometres from microscopic Israel would invest so much passion and faux law in his endeavours to show that “you people” are just a gang of outlaws is not a mystery. “You people” know the reason.
Oh, by the way, when are the Maori People going to get their indigenous sovereignty back?

Netanyahu and Jews generally were “upset” because the resolution is a flagrant violation of The Mandate for ‘Palestine’ 1922.
It is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and a number of other acts of law and convention.
The passage of the resolution illustrates the contempt which the supporting governments have for the Jewish People.

Look, in 1938-39,non-Jewish governments had the same sort of contempt for the non-Jewish state of Czechoslovakia, so do you think that the little matter of repudiating established law endorsing Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria would bother those governments very much?

The world runs on realpolitik.
A distinguished British gentleman once said during the Mandate era, ” If we have to offend the Arabs or the Jews, let us offend the Jews.”

CB…Netanyahu was upset because the Arabs see UNSC resolution 2334 as a way for them to have a ‘state’ without having to agree to any terms.

Mahmoud Abbas wants two states. One for Arabs, which he has already said will be Jew free. One for Jews and Arabs. The hope for the latter is that eventually the Arabs will out breed the Jews and therefor he will be his ‘one state solution which we all know he wants.

G’morning C.B. No mate, you can’t tar everyone with the same feathers…scholars or otherwise. I have come across people on this Webpage; who in my opinion, range in political embrace from the left through to the right.

I believe your reply to me has taken the opportunity to further expand, and reinforce your mind set as to the ‘illegality’ of Israel’s development of Settlements….when all I was looking to establish was a little clearer understanding of the political engine that drives Andreas Zimmermann and his Potsdam Centre, …if you knew such.

To me, he is a ‘newy’…though widely diverging in subject matter commentary. I stress…’to me’. The gentleman could have been around for yonks for all I know.

Now C.B. Where would you slot me among ‘those people’ of this ‘website’. To me, the UN and/or Resolution 2334, is of no relevance…as I believe Israel should equally think about it.

No more than toady balderdash to justify the existence, and relevance of the re-invented Marxists of this time and era.

I never allow my thought capacity to be bogged down with ‘Two State Solutions’…or any Solution for that matter, that involves as much as a thimble full of Islamic consideration.

You C.B., like me…. know that the like of Abraham and Joshua were kicking gibbers around the hills of Samaria and Judea…. two to three thousand years before old Mohammad was out of diapers….or even learnt to ride his first camel.

Unbroken succession, and possession, is nine tenths of the law…any law…including that of the legal doyens of Brussels and New York. Case closed C.B. Pointless debating the issue further…eh!?

The unfortunate aspect of this whole saga, is that the Israeli Government has spent the past 65 odd years cowtowing to, and bending over backwards to appease a strain of humanity that is mired in savagery, and the teachings of one very obnoxious Book.

Yep C.B….In the very final analysis, that is what it comes down to. There’s is only one solution for a peaceful conclusion/solution within the borders of Israel…total repatriation of that Book and it’s devotees to a ME region they can legally identify with….somewhere where slaughter, savagery and mayhem are the order of every day life.

I know that will never happen…but we can live in hope C.B.

(Oh C.B….should you now think otherwise of me ..I am pretty much a non subscriber to organised religion, and apolitic…just more of a character who understands, and lives by civilised human values…)

You need to petition the UN to live the same way…as NO GOOD is ever going to come of that ‘Organisation’ ……as they continue on their ‘merry way’.) They might just get trumped even…!

When politicians want to mislead public opinion they often resort to the catchcry, “Illegal!”
The Security Council consists of the representatives of politicians of states that wish to intimidate Israel into amputating additional tracts of its legitimate entitlement under the bedrock determination of international law known as the 1922 Mandate for “Palestine.” [ my inverted commas.]
That determination was re-endorsed by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter, and subsequently Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The Oslo Accords in no way prejudice Israel’s legal entitlements in Judea and Samaria.

The catchcry, “Illegal”, is the 20th and 21st centuries’ equivalent of so many other catchcries of the past regarding the Jewish People: ” Deicides!”, ” Communists,” ” Capitalists!”, ” Religious fanatics!,” Immoral atheists!” etc etc
There’s an extensive menu from which over the millennia the wicked, the immoral, the unjust have selected and used as weapons in the unending war against the Jews.

Some Jews, too, out of ignorance or a desire to find favour in the eyes of host societies,[ and also people who opportunistically parade their status of “half-Jews,” ] join the chorus.

No…just a genuine inquiry…Not much than 38 hours ago, I pulled into Penn Station New York…from Trump’s Inauguration in Washington, enroute to JFK Airport, and met in the Rail Station’s main concourse, a collective group of Muslim/Jewish Women – in costume with an abundant number of emblematic icons…obviously headed to a protest somewhere, with placard and banners crying out …”Trump…Half Jew…Half Fascist”.

I made a comment to them…not encouraging…and received a mouth full. Such is life, and was expected. I was sitting at Brisbane Airport this afternoon reading Shirlee’s
Webpage…and noticed the expression again. I have heard it a few times of late…and it came as a bit of a shock to me – from women carrying or displaying the Star of David in some form.

It’s a new one to me….prompting my inquiry. I did not mean to cause offence.

You did not cause offence. I assumed that the meaning of the term is well known.
The term “half Jew” is usually meant to convey that only one parent is Jewish.
The protesters, however, whom you encountered did not mean that. Neither of Mr Trump’s parents was a Jew.
What they meant was that Mr Trump’s nature is composed of two evils: one is Jewish, and the other, Fascist.
These sorts of people project their own fascism onto others, hence they reject the democratic process, believing that they alone have the right to be the government; and hence they consider “Jew” to be a term of opprobrium.

@Leon…Thank you. Yes, it is now clear to me that they are trying to paint the word Jew….or half Jew, as sinister. Just seemed a little lame brained to myself….Just left me puzzled.

Fascist…well that is cat call in every hater’s tool box. (Heck…at times I have to check in the mirror to see if I have grown a toothbrush moustache…for the number of times I have been called a Fascist…then again I’m sometimes wear the tag of Bolshie). Again thank you for the explanation.

My problem lies with those who want to make something complex simple in order to call it “illegal”. The problem lies in stripping away context. Israel didn’t simply take the land in 1967, it retook it, after it was taken from Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied by Jordan. So my question has to be this. Germany took France in WW2. Is it now “illegal” for France to ever take its territory back from Germany? That is what they are saying about Israel.

Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip are all legitimate, legal Jewish / Israeli entitlements.
In the decades following their international recognition as such, international politics, not law or justice, have gnawed away at those entitlements.
That gnawing away is an indelible blot on Western civilisation, the same civilisation that already bore the indelible blot of the Holocaust.
The current anti-Zionist wave is part of the continuum that began in antiquity.
The myth of illegality is the most recent driving force of that wave.

I dont know where you have lived your whole life, Leon Poddebsky. But where I live, laws are changing all the time. International Law, as of today, 2017, says that the Settlements are illegal. Just because David Singer quotes a biased misinterpretation of Charter 40, does not make them legal in 2017.

Here is just one example line from the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2004, when petitioned about the wall through East Jerusalem. “Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law.”

Did they mention there that all this was happening within the region that was given to Israel in the legitimate, legal Jewish / Israeli entitlements including Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip by Article 80 of the UN Charter? I really cannot see where they say that.

Notice as well that they said “Recalling that the Security Council described…” in other words the ICJ considers the resolutions of the SC as helping define what the current laws are, not just interpret what they are. The ICJ interprets law. The SC helps write it. Just like governments write laws and courts interpret them.

So, there really was no doubt that the settlements were illegal in 2004, but some people kept arguing that they were legal. After the 2016 resolution, those arguments are now lost.

You are enjoying this C.B. Used to do the same thing myself…find a dedicated web based grouping of warm fuzzy leftists, slip in, hurl a few incindary comments around…and then sit back and enjoy the tit for tat games.

Academic/Legalistic argument aside C.B.it’s Jew Land….from the River to the Sea…(and much further east actually). What are the ‘International Comunity’ ever going to do C.B….beyond talk fest huffing and puffing…send in the New Zealand and Sengal Navies….hit the beaches running…hang ’em high at the Hague….Sanction them…oh they have tried that with BDS.

Sorry C.B….the very real reality is that you, along with the ‘International Community’ are talking to cool your teeth. Push comes to shove, even that ‘International Community’ will fall apart at the seams….far too many part time Jew lovers embedded within their midst.

All that needs to happen C.B. is for Netanyahu and his Government to okay many more more thousands of Settlement dwellings within the borders of Israel…in lieu of the current batch of 500 for East Jerusalem, and 2500 for Judea and Smaria….and hunt…repatriate, every last Camel rider from within it’s Home Land borders.

Read up on Dr. Sherman…. from the Israeli Strategy Centre, for a clear understanding of what needs to be effected to put the wrong done to Jews and Israel right. He’s a scholar/academic C.B…..you would like him.

Times lines C.B…..Israel is zig zagged with them….it’s like a kid’s school yard hopscotch course.

In 2000, Camp David offered Arabs a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and returned to launch the deadly terror war known as the Second Intifada.

IN 2008 Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a peace agreement that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in virtually all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem. Once again, the Palestinians turned down the offer.

Since that time Israel has released murderers and terrorists from gaol as a precondition to holding talks. Funnily enough Abu Mazen hasn’t come to the table.

Only a few months ago the snake-in-the-grass John Kerry tried to get him to come to the table and he wouldn’t.

A) building settlements by Israel against the will of the Palestinians and indeed against the expressed will of the whole International community who have again re-iterated that these settlements are illegal

B) a 13-0 international vote of the security council, which does not include Palestine as a member and that condemns violence, and states that Israel has the right to exist but that the settlements are illegal,

which is unilateral, in your understanding of that word?

If Netanyahu thinks the issues should be addressed through negotiation, as he says in words, why is he using Israels superior force to act build settlements without any negotiation? I do not recall any negotiations where the Settlements were agreed upon.

Actions speak louder than words.

I know I will get responses where no one actually faces up to these points and instead start quoting how Israel gave Palestine the opportunity previously but they did not take it.. If that is the position of Israel.. then why not say it?? “We no longer want to negotiate because it did not work so now we act unilaterally.” At least that would be honest, with actions matching words.

You cant have it both ways. “we want you to negotiate but we are taking what we want without negotiating for it”

I agree, Israel does not need permission to build on land where they are legally entitled. the problem is that they are building on land where they are not legally entitled. And it does not matter if a few people distort the facts and kid themselves that what is clearly illegal is legal

The Arabs never accepted the land in 1948. When Israel proclaimed statehood, they should have done so too.

But no, instead choose to go to war rather than accept the UN’s decision to partition Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations.

5 Arab nations attacked the fledgling State of Israel, and lost, with Jordan and Egypt stealing the land intended for their Arab brothers.

So Jordan and Egypt, according to your way of thinking, illegally occupied the land earmarked for their brothers.
Note here I say earmarked. That means the land belonged to no one i.e. unclaimed Mandate land.

So where was the outcry?

Oh that’s OK, it was Arabs who ‘stole’ the land. Never mind the fact that Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city and Jordan almost destroyed the entire Jewish section of the Old City. Every synagogue destroyed. The Mount of Olives, a 3,000 year of cemetery desecrated. Graves were dug up to build an hotel and a road. Headstones used as steps and the graves used as lavatories. Every Jewish Community, thousands of years old in Judaea and Samaria, destroyed.

When Israel took all of Judaea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967, she was only moving into unclaimed Mandate land. Israel cannot be an occupier in land that according to international law belonged to her in the first place.

CB – “Palestinian”? “Palestonian will. . .” What’s a “Palestinian”? There are Palestinianists. Advocates of the doctrine of Palestinianism. Which asserts that the Potemkin Village propaganda ploy of (sic) “Palestine” must be accorded more respect than other made-up places such as Narnia, Mordor, Neverland, or Westros.

At present this fiction exists in two manifestations that are at war with one another. One a Theocratic Kleptocracy and the other a Neopatrimonialist (secular/tribal) Kleptocracy.

Even after 70+ years on the international dole, neither is even a viable proto-state. Nor do they show the slightest promise of becoming anything other than another failed Arab state. Even, were they to realize their genocidal wet dreams of annihilating the only Jewish state on the planet; and returning the remaining Jews to third class status; under their religiously mandated Apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

Which of these is the real (sic)”Palestine”?

The Palestinianists themselves don’t believe the tripe they get useful idiots to regurgitate when framing high-sounding tendentious argument.

[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen] – “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.”

[http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3389.htm scroll to Time Index 1:34] – Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad (Al-Hekma TV (Egypt) – March 23, 2012: “Half of the Palestinians Are Egyptians and the Other Half Are Saudis”

[http://sarahhonig.com/2015/06/18/another-tack-mahmoud-abbass-careless-candor/] Abbas: “the relationship between Jordan and Palestine is the relationship of one nation living in two states.”

See also – [http://tinyurl.com/Palestinianism-Fraud] – Collected Palestinianist statements denying the existence of a (sic)”Palestinian” national identity distinct from that of other Arabs (incl by Arafat)

We also see this in the founding documents of Palestinianism.

Article 1 of The Palestinian National Charter states: ” . . . the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”
[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp] There is no Palestinian identity separate from that of other Arabs.

The Hamas are strict constructionist Islamists; and, as such, do not recognize the kuffar concept of Nation State. One is either a part of the Dar-al-Islam (the realm of peace) or, the Dar-al-Harb (the realm of war.) This they make explicit in their founding document the “Hamas Covenant” in Article 11: ” The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.” [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp]

BTW – This “consecration” is the result of armed aggression (in 637 CE), at the beginning of the Arab Imperial Project; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637) ] and passed from one Caliph to another by war; and was rendered moot by the dissolution of the non-Arab Ottoman Caliphate as a result of WWI. (see the various references to the League of Nations Mandate, Article 80 of the UN Charter above. You might also fruitfully peruse The San Remo Resolution of 1920 and the 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine [http://www.think-israel.org/belman.israelownssamariajudea.html] – Actual International Law. By the UN Charter neither the UNSC nor the UNGA are legislatures empowered to make International Law.)

There are also cultural and linguistic markers which demonstrate that the soi-disant ‘Palestinians’ are merely remnants of this now putrescent Arab Imperial Project.

All of these Arab’s family/clan names, refer to somewhere else; and not the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=47c_1358574333].

Although, Fatah Revolutionary Council member Dimitri Diliani runs a close second. His assertion that the Arabs of (sic)”Palestine” are descended from the Jebusites; is beyond absurd. The only confirmed mention of the Jebusites is in the Hebrew Bible. That’s the only source that says that Jebusites lived around Jerusalem.

We know the Boers and the British are invader/occupier/colonialists in South Africa because neither of their languages have the glottal and pharyngeal constrictive (‘Click’) phonemes found in all the actual indigenous languages of that region. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_consonant]

Arabic lacks the labial plosive (‘P’) phoneme. This means that these Arabs are unable to pronounce the name, they claim is that of their “Native Homeland: in their “Native Language”.

There is not even a consistent ‘Palestinian Arab’ dialect. Arabs in Bethlehem speak differently than Arabs in Hebron (even though they live only 30 kilometers apart). One uses a G sound (the voiced velar stop) and the other a K sound (the unvoiced velar stop)when saying the same word. The difference between thing and think.

The word ‘Palestine’ has no root, or meaning, in Arabic. It is a loan word from the British Mandate period. The immediately previous “sovereign” (whose claim also rests on conquest) the Ottomans did not use the term [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/OttomanDistricts1915.html]

Apart from the legal, cultural and linguistic markers that demonstrate Palestinianism’s claim of indigenous status for the Arab conquistador remnant; to be nothing more than malevolent fiction (the false a priori assumption on which your fraudulent argument rests); the evidence for the indigenous status of the Jews is overwhelming.

The archaeological evidence for the historicity of Saul, David and Solomon
[http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-united-monarchy-rereading-the-bible-and-the-archaeological-evidence/]

This bit of braggadocio by Aram-Damascene king Hazael from about 830 BCE
[http://www.timesofisrael.com/ancient-rock-adds-evidence-of-king-davids-existence/]

The mention of King Hezekaiah (who figures prominently in the Bible) in the annals of Sennacherib of Assyria [http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2014/assyria-to-iberia/blog/posts/sennacherib-and-jerusalem]

An impression of Hezekaiah’s royal seal was recently found in situ in an archeaologial excavation in Jerusalem.
[http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/king-hezekiah-in-the-bible-royal-seal-of-hezekiah-comes-to-light/]

Then there is the encounter with Alexander III of Macedon (356 BCE – 323 BCE), commonly known as Alexander the Great. As reported by both Josephus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”[http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-11.htm Chapter 8 Paragraph 5] and independently by Livy [http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t35.html]

Then there Josephus’ account of “The Jewish War” against Rome [http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-pref.htm] in which he was a participant.

Other Archaeological evidence includes this Byzantine era gold hoard recently found in Jerusalem [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10296511/Byzantine-era-gold-hoard-unearthed-in-Jerusalem.html]

Moving into the mid 16th Century CE we have this atlas and gazeteer by Adrian Reland (1676-1718)
[https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/a-tour-and-census-of-palestine-year-1695-no-sign-of-arabian-names-or-palestinians/]

A chronology of continuous Jewish settlement in the land from 1517 to the present can be found here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#Modern_history_.281517.E2.80.93present.29]

NONE OF THESE SERIAL CONQUESTS (GOING BACK TO ROME) ABROGATES THE INDIGENOUS RIGHTS [http://indigenouspeoples.nl/indigenous-peoples/definition-indigenous\] OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO THEIR ANCIENT HOMELAND. WHICH IS ATTESTED TO, NOT ONLY BY NON-JEWISH HISTORICAL SOURCES (ABOVE); BUT BY:

THE HEBREW LANGUAGE
Most of the texts of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” [http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=17&sub_subj_id=525#MMMas] are legible to readers of modern Israeli Hebrew in he same way that Shakespeare’s First Folio are legible to modern English speakers. The balance are in paleo-Hebrew whose connection with modern Hebrew is incontrovertible. Not to mention that the texts themselves are identical with their modern Jewish and Christian iterations.

THE JEWISH CALENDAR
Unlike the Muslim calendar, which follows the cycles of the moon and whose holidays, therefore, float through the solar year in a 33 year cycle, it is carefully calibrated and constantly adjusted to remain synchronized with the planting and harvest seasons in Israel regardless of when those seasons occur in the Diaspora. In the Diaspora certain holidays are celebrated on two consecutive days to insure that those celebrations occur “during the specified day” in Israel. These holidays are only observed for one day in Israel.

JEWISH CULTURAL PRACTICE
The central act of all Jewish worship is the reading of sections of the Torah (with supplementary reading from the Prophets) in a cycle that completes the reading of the text in either one or three years. These texts speak exhaustively of the Jewish connection to the land. The readings are bracketed by prayers, each one of which makes mention of our desire to return to the land and the rebuilding of Zion and Jerusalem. Similar prayers are a prominent feature of every life-cycle event and holiday celebration. The Passover Seder concludes with “Next Year in Jerusalem”

Any one who asserts that Jewish scholars must be biased because of their Jewishness opens himself up to the retort that non-Jewish scholars must be biased because of their non-Jewishness.
Both assertions are of equal merit.
And I maintain this despite my awareness that Western civilisation has a history of antisemitism which persists to this day.
The toleration of the nefarious activities of the so-called “Peace Centre” at The University of Sydney exemplifies this.
That antisemites disingenuously complain that criticism of those activities amounts to “stifling freedom of speech” is itself evidence of their pathology as, e.g., the stifling of Colonel Kemp dramatically illustrates.

Leon. I did not assert that. I responded to someone who said that a humans rights lawyer must be biased. And I did not say Jewish scholars must be biased… many Jewish scholars think that the Settlements are illegal.
What I said was.. let us remove all people who are all potentially biased and see what is left and look at their opinions..

CB’s self-righteous assertion of superiority about where he lives and where I have lived, compound the bankruptcy of his position.

To refer to an advisory OPINION, not JUDGEMENT of the International Court, and to suppress the fact that Israel did not present its comprehensive case for the legality of the communities in Judea and Samaria before that court is to reveal a disgraceful adherence to the conviction that Israel does not have a right to equal justice.

That conviction is demonstrated by the United Nations Organisation for almost 365 days a year.
It is shared by the European Union and by antisemites globally.

Yes, far better to refer to the opinion of David Singer and Leon Poddebsky than the advisory opinion of the ICJ. I am sure you are correct and that the ICJ are just confused.

my word. It is **only** an opinion of the ICJ. There normal practice is to give opinions that are totally the opposite of what they would decide in a judgement. It keeps people on their toes. If only Israel had have presented their case.. I am just sure the ICJ had no idea about those points made by David Singer and yourself, I mean how on earth could judges in the ICJ actually know International Law of the situation without someone explaining it to them?

CB. Seeing as to how you have issues with Israel living on its ancestral lands which She has lived on for over 3000 years, just curious here… I presume you have the same thoughts as to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc., all of which are fabricated creations from the British and French Mandates.

Yes. something has sunk in. That is, we are finally getting closer to the truth of what is happening, as displayed by you (Shirlee) and Grahams latest posts. The issue of illegality is clear and settled, you all ran out of arguments when confronted with the reality of the ICJs 2004 opinion coupled to the fact that the only thing of significance that has happened since then is the SC resolution 2334 which considerably strengthens the case for illegality. So now, the real position is being put forward. It is Jewish land and we own it all. regardless of what the International community says. Regardless of International Law.

Ok. Fine. If that is your position just say it. But dont try to kid yourselves that it is legal in the eyes of International Law. You can argue that it **should be legal** but not that it **is** legal, because it is not.

This is the last I am posting. I can post plenty of information but this will do. I have more to do with my time.

Israel’s right to Judaea and Samaria.

In November 1917, British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour endorsed the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This is known as the Balfour Declaration.

In July 1922, the League of Nations unanimously passed the Mandate for Palestine, which was based on the San Remo Resolution, the first international legal document that recognised the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

After WWII, the League of Nations ceased to exist, and the United Nations was established. Chapter XII of the Charter of the UN deals with the “International Trusteeship System,” which applies to the Mandate system.

Once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, Article 80 of this chapter preserved intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine. The UN Charter is an international treaty, and as such binding in international law.

In 1947, Great Britain declared her intention to turn the Mandate for Palestine back to the UN because Arab reactions against Israel’s rights in Palestine were severely problematic.

November 29, 1947, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into a state for the Jews and a state for the Arabs. (Note: NOTHING was said about a “Palestinian state or Palestinian Arabs.) : General Assembly resolutions carry no weight in international law. Its resolutions are only recommendations. The General Assembly recommended that Palestine be divided.

The Jews accepted the resolution, the Arabs rejected it. Thus, Resolution 181 was null and void. It carried no weight whatsoever. This means that the Mandate was still in effect – nothing in international law had superseded it.

Following the war of 1948-9 Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement. The line between Israel and Jordan was an armistice line. Jordan demanded that it be stated in the armistice agreement that this was a temporary line and that the final border had to be determined by negotiations. This armistice line, which was often referred to as the Green Line, was temporary. And yet the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters refer to it as the 1967 “border” and insist that Israel must withdraw to it. There is no basis for this demand in international law.

When Israel took all of Judaea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967, she was only moving into unclaimed Mandate land. Israel cannot be an occupier in land that according to international law belonged to her in the first place.

The ICJ came to the conclusion it did because it failed to consider article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

Why did they do that?

Because the Secretary General of the UN – Kofi Annan – who requested the ICJ opinion – did not ask them to do so.

The question Annan asked them to give their opinion on was:

“What are the legal consequences arising from rhe construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalern,as described in fhe report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? ”

The advisory opinion was given specifically in response to that question.

Note the question is drafted in very similar language to the language used in Resolution 2334.

However one of the judges – Justice El-Araby – did urge the Court to delve deeper into its research into the international legal status of the disputed territories with this astute statement:

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

The Court failed to heed his warning and did not consider the legal effect of the Mandate.

So the Court answered Annan’s question as framed by him – but there would have been a very different answer had the question been framed as follows:

“What are the legal consequences arising from rhe construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the territories disputed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation as described in fhe report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Mandate for Palestine, article 80 of the United Nations Charter, fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? ”

“Resolution 2334 is illegal because:
1. Article 80 of the UN Charter preserves the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza, Judea and and Samaria (West Bank) pursuant to the1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
2. Resolution 2334 violates article 80 because it seeks to deny the rights preserved by article 80.
3. The UN Security Council cannot act in contravention of the UN Charter.

If you want to dispute my claim then state the specific facts or opinions on which you rely.

Your only answer so far has been:
“The claim that resolution 2334 itself “illegal” is quite amazing. Really clutching at straws there. Illegal?? Really? wow. Sure you are not just being biased here?”

That generalised rubbish is not good enough – and indeed insulting.

What bias are you referring to? Is it that I am Jewish? Don’t you think Jews can hold opinions without their views being summarily dismissed as being biased?

I have stated my above reasons to justify my claim that Resolution 2334 is illegal.

Now you must state your reasons why you disagree and we can then have a reasoned discussion.

In simple terms – put up or shut up.”

Do I take your silence to mean you have decided you have nothing to put up ?

After huffing and puffing a bit, Palestinianists generally fall silent when confronted with evidence. Depends, to a certain extent, on how much they’ve bought into Pappe and the rest of the pseudo-scholars; whose Swiss Cheesecloth malarkey falls apart at a sneeze.

CB’s silence is indeed strange following his numerous sarcastic posts to date including:

“Yes, far better to refer to the opinion of David Singer and Leon Poddebsky than the advisory opinion of the ICJ. I am sure you are correct and that the ICJ are just confused.”

Perhaps CB is confused by my detailed responses on the ICJ advisory opinion and the illegality of Resolution 2334 and has written to the UN trying to find answers to rebut my claims.

He will get plenty of irrelevant and self-serving rubbish from the UN – which has made a complete fool of itself with pious declarations of what constitutes international law on the question of the Mandate for Palestine.

I will be delighted to answer any detailed and substantive responses he cares to make.